23-wp-4612-2023.doc Shabnoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4612 OF 2023 Dilip Manohar Desai … Petitioner V/s. M/s. Pereira & Castelino & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Yogendra Pendse, for the Petitioner. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2026 P.C.: 1. The challenge in this petition arises out of an order dated 9th December 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court – II, Mumbai ("CGIT – II") in Miscellaneous Application No. CGIT-2/3 of 2019, thereby setting aside the ex-parte order dated 10th August 2017 passed by the earlier CGIT. 2. The sole reason for recalling the ex-parte order appears to be the acceptance of the purported sufficient cause presented by the respondents, namely that the Advocate for the respondents, despite receiving instructions, failed to appear before the Tribunal. 3. The respondents' explanation was that they had engaged an Advocate and handed over the papers, including the vakalatnama, for filing the written statement. They were under the impression 1 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2026.02.20 14:40:01 +0530 23-wp-4612-2023.doc that the Advocate had filed the written statement. However, they only came to know of the ex-parte order upon receiving the notice dated 2nd January 2019. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to the affidavit filed by the Advocate, whom the respondents had allegedly engaged to appear for them before the Tribunal. In her affidavit, the Advocate has stated that the respondents had approached her to represent them in the matter; however, she had informed them that she could not appear. This affidavit has not been disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal through a counter-affidavit. 5. It appears that on 14th June 2024, this Court issued notice to the respondents. 6. The Advocate for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of service along with the track consignment report, indicating that the notice was delivered to the respondents on 2 August 2024. Despite this, the respondents have failed to appear. Consequently, the petition is being decided on its merits. 7. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it appears that the reasons furnished by the respondents for recalling the ex- parte order are false. Given the false nature of the reasons provided, the Tribunal could not have recalled its ex-parte order. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The order dated 9 December 2019 passed by the CJIT – II is hereby set aside. 2 23-wp-4612-2023.doc (ii) The order dated 10 August 2017 passed by the CJIT in Application (Ref) No.CGIT-2/1 of 2013 stands restored. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 3